The 性视界传媒 Book Club has just read Ursula K. Le Guin’s novel The Dispossessed Gollancz; Benjamin Brink/The Oregonian/AP/Alamy
After our head-spinning read of Alex Foster鈥檚 Circular Motion, in which Earth鈥檚 rotation starts speeding up, the 性视界传媒 Book Club headed to two very different worlds in Ursula K. Le Guin鈥檚 novel The Dispossessed. This bona fide sci-fi classic from 1974 moves between two timelines: in one, physicist Shevek leaves his home on the desolate moon Anarres to work at a university on Urras, a neighbouring, far more abundant planet; in the other, we see him grow up on Anarres within its anarchist society.
I first read The Dispossessed in my second year of university. Back then, I was amazed by the structure of the novel and the anarchist principles of Shevek鈥檚 home society. What better time to read radical fiction than when you鈥檙e a fresh-faced student, after all? This time around, though, I was much more drawn to the human elements of the story. I feel I understood Shevek鈥檚 character far better on second reading, even if I didn鈥檛 always like him.
Lots of book club members were delighted when we announced The Dispossessed would be our next read. 鈥淭his is my favourite Le Guin book, though it really is hard to choose,鈥 says Kelly Jensen in , while it had been on Rachel Hand鈥檚 to-be-read pile for some time. For some readers, this was the first time they had picked up a Le Guin novel 鈥 something Theo Downes-Le Guin, Ursula鈥檚 son, described in a piece for 性视界传媒 as a 鈥渓eap into the deep end of a pool鈥.聽Eek.
Advertisement
But despite its intimidating reputation, some readers loved how The Dispossessed is so jam-packed with ideas about politics, physics and language. Laura Akers says it鈥檚 鈥渁bsolutely brilliant that Le Guin has these people working on the physics of the 鈥榯ime鈥 side of the space-time continuum鈥. Elizabeth Drummond Young was 鈥渋mmediately engaged鈥 and liked 鈥渢he linguistic/behavioural references: how do people swear, introduce themselves, abbreviate, name themselves etc. (Ainsetain is a nice example of a linguistic joke!)鈥. I wonder what Einstein would have made of the novel!
One thing is clear, though: despite its egalitarian principles, few of us want to live on Anarres. The people there 鈥渃annot seriously value its life forms for their own sake,聽as we can on Earth鈥, says Laura. 鈥淎lthough they鈥檙e not wasteful and are always conscious of their ecosystem, they always have to focus on how to manipulate it so that they can stay alive. We on Earth have the luxury of being able to enjoy nature, experience wonder at its nuances, etc., and I wouldn鈥檛 want to have to give that up. Imagine not having any animals!鈥
Gosia Furmanik isn鈥檛 so sure: 鈥淥n one hand yes, it’s great that there’s no exploitation and people can in principle do what they want/are called for, and are provided for no matter what. On the other hand, people are people and this doesn’t seem to always work well, people can get sent all over the place for job postings.鈥
Free newsletter
Sign up to Book Club
Join our friendly crowd of fellow book club members in reading and discussing the latest in science and science fiction.

That鈥檚 something that came up in my conversation with Marcus Gipps, editor at large at Le Guin鈥檚 publisher Gollancz. 鈥淓verything, of course, is so much about point of view,鈥 he told me. 鈥淚 would be fascinated to know what somebody who had grown up in, let鈥檚 say, East Germany before the fall of the wall thought of this book, because I think they might have a very, very different opinion and take on it.鈥 I would too!
Perhaps the most divisive element of the novel was its presentation of women. Some readers were frustrated by potentially sexist tropes in the book, and found it jarring that our view of Anarres and Urras was filtered through the perspective of a man. 鈥淚 actually thought that the book showed the author’s internalised biases, probably expected for the time it was written,鈥 says Gosia. 鈥淔rom the way relationships were portrayed (e.g. Shevek’s first relationship at the tree planting camp), to the heavy skew towards cis hetero monogamy (despite there being no marriage! But we still have only couples??).鈥
Others felt the novel鈥檚 gender politics were more intentional. 鈥淟e Guin wanted us to at least think about the status of women in our, and Anarresti, society,鈥 says Niall Leighton. 鈥淚 don’t think that it’s safe to assume that she was advocating a position on what a utopia should look like in any given characteristic of Anarresti society.鈥
With so many complex ideas to explore, it鈥檚 little wonder not everyone found the book an easy read. Phil Gurski wasn鈥檛 a fan and stopped reading at around page 160, as he had 鈥渁bsolutely no clue what is happening鈥, while Steve Swan 鈥渉ad to persevere in the early stages鈥. Judith Lazell summed up this view nicely: 鈥溾楾he Dispossessed鈥 wasn鈥檛 a gripping read; too much philosophy, not enough story.鈥
I can see what Phil, Steve and Judith mean by that. For me, there is the odd moment in the book when all the ideas become overwhelming. I鈥檓 not alone there: 鈥淯rsula Le Guin is an absolute master and I’m a huge fan. I can see why this got so many awards, there is some really deep thought that has gone into the various political systems,鈥 says Alan Perrett. 鈥淗owever I’m not convinced that the lengthy philosophical debates don’t detract from the story although 鈥 as always 鈥 the maestro manages to finish the book in a completely satisfying way.鈥
Thankfully, many book club members ended up really enjoying The Dispossessed. 鈥淚 loved this book,鈥 says Niall. 鈥淚 consider it one of the most influential books on my thinking since I read it as an adolescent.鈥 鈥淭he ending was my favourite bit,鈥 says Rachel. Terry James liked the last 50 pages of the novel the best too, calling it a 鈥渨onderful ride of imagination鈥.
We鈥檙e leaving behind imaginative science fiction worlds for the next 性视界传媒 Book Club pick and entering the world of neuroscience with a prize-winning piece of non-fiction. I am thrilled to say we will be reading the winner of this year鈥檚 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize: Our Brains, Our Selves by neuroscientist and clinician Masud Husain. In seven fascinating case studies, Husain reveals how neurological conditions of all shapes and sizes can undermine a person鈥檚 identity and sense of belonging. This book, which our reviewer Grace Wade called 鈥渋ntriguing and informative鈥 back in February, is one for fans of Oliver Sacks, and indeed anyone interested in learning more about neuroscience.
You can read an extract from the book here. We also have a unique insight into the awards process from Sandra Knapp, a plant taxonomist at the Natural History Museum in London and the chair of the judging panel. In this piece, she explains why Our Brains, Our Selves was a cut above the other fantastic entries and what she learned from this 鈥渧ery compassionate鈥 book. Please do share your thoughts in our , and let us know if you enjoy our next read.
Topics:




